Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Jerry West
I just wrote this up from a C-Class affair to a GA, and plan to make this article a FA. General comments are always appreciated, and specific input to following points is valued especially:
- References: is the ref-fing FA-worthy, or does this article need more sources
- Info about West's early life is scarce, are 2 multiply used refs ok
- Do you need book info to get a biography to FA?
- Also, do you ALWAYS need WP:CITET templates?
- Sections: is the sectioning ok or too dense? Do I need to introduce more "breaks" for the reader?
- Pictures: one pic of West and one of him as the NBA logo; are the other pics of the people he is closely linked to informative or rather a drag
- Prose flow: I am not the best prose writer in WP, and I unspecifically feel the flow is sub-FA.
Hope not to have scared people with this list, any tips are appreciated. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just a note to say, on my screen there's quite a bit of white space where the images are close together: at the "Late success and twilight years" and "Legacy" section headings. You should try to arrange them so that this white space is minimised. (If you can't see it, try other web-browsers or resolutions). DrKiernan (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Review by Anne Teedham
[edit]I would like to suggest to you that you reach out to a copy-edit volunteer.
Essentially, the problem is that you try too hard to make your sentences complex. There is nothing wrong with simple sentences. Yet, rather than having you correct something yourself, a good copyeditor will achieve the preciseness of your voice without rewriting your style. It is always good for a writer to find his own, good, personal editor.
With regards to DrKiernan's comment.... I may or may not understand precisely what the good Dr means by "there's quite a bit of white space where the images are close together" (unless he means that he would prefer to have the "stacking" of one-upon-the-other without any visible whiteness); however, I believe that a more preferable correction would be for you to alter your images from side-to-side, e.g. "align:right, align:left, align:center". Anne Teedham (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Review by Mae Sendikson
[edit]Good article. Liked it as far as I read. Which was as far as the first mention of Wilt Chamberlain, (subsection: "Leader of the Lakers"). By that time, I had become overwhelmed by the numbers (76.3%-this, 34.3-that). I think that you need to cut back on the statistics. Give us only the most vital and most important from this point on (i.e. "Leader of the Lakers"). Too much of a good thing becomes overly boring. After the intensive (and interesting) detailed play-by-play of the 1962 NBA Finals, all the statics need to be shoved into the background: your reader is now more interested in the rivalry between Los Angeles and Boston.
As to the images, I agree with Anne. You need to place them throughout the article rather than stack them. Also, Wikipedia wants those images to illustrate the article rather than be static. Your images are static. An illustrative image would be one which shows an illegal shove of Elgin Baylor by Sam Jones. If you are going to write as an in-depth an article as you have written, then give the fans what they want to see: action action action, and plenty of it. Make your article come alive rather than look (and read) like a boring bunch of static statistics. Somewhere around here is an artilce on Rudolf Wanderone. In it, the editors worked the reader's attention into a dramatic shootout between Minnesota Fats and Willie Mosconi. The drama lofts that article into the realm of the featured category. Good article though. Liked it a lot. Jerry West is on its way to featured...eventually.Mae Sendikson (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)